Harry Potter Rants
by tkepner
Summary: Observations about the Harry Potter Universe and ; i.e., Marriage Contracts, Lordships, Copyright, the billionaire Harry, and so forth.
1. Chapter 1

**Harry "the billionaire" Potter!**

I find that a common problem in HP fanfic is making Harry a bllionaire, or at least a 100 millionaire. Unfortunately, that's impossible. The Wizard economy in Britain is simply too small for any one person to be that rich in 1991/2, or even today! If you assume there are 100,000 adult wizards in Britain (most probably the number is closer to 85,000 - those under 19 make up about 15,000) and the average wizard earns the same as the average muggle, then the _total_ Wizarding economy has a Gross Domestic Product (population multiplied by the yearly income of the population) of only 2 billion galleons. It is impossible for someone to accumulate half the money spent in an economy in a year.

As an example, the US has a GDP of 16 trillion dollars in 2014 and the richest person in the US is Bill Gates at $89 billion or .0055% of the GDP. The top 10 richest in America combined only reach .025% of the GDP. Applying those numbers to the wizards in Britain means the richest wizard (probably Sirius) has only 1.2 million galleons. And the top ten would share 4.25 million galleons.

Great Britain has a quite a few billionaires, far more than the USA, but their riches, for the most part, come from _OUTSIDE_ Great Britain because of the generous-to-foreigners tax code – Russian oligarchs, and foreign energy and commodity magnates with incomes from outside Britain. And most are immigrants. The British GDP in 1992 was 1.58 trillion dollars with 58 million citizens, making the average yearly income ~£10,000 (check google) or ~2,000 galleons at an exchange of 5-to-1. Gerald Cavendish, the Duke of Westminster, was the the sixth richest U.K. citizen with an $11 billion fortune (£5.6 billion) or .0069% of the British economy (the five richer citizens were all immigrants with incomes from _GLOBAL_ markets – the Duke's income is entirely based in England). The Queen of England had only £300 million, which would be 60 million galleons. In 2015, J.K Rowling hit £580 million with 90% of that coming from non-British book sales and Hollywood movie income.

You can't use the Muggle numbers to justify the wizard fortunes because then all the businessman wizards would have to know that 99% of their income came from the Muggle side of their economy, and they would value everything in pounds, not galleons (Sheer volume would drive the galleons out of the market). Only a complete idiot would deliberately and knowingly plot to wipe out the source of 99% of his income, no matter how much he despised it! (Sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.) For example, both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington detested slavery, yet maintained large estates employing slaves — because they would go _bankrupt_ if they tried to run their estates without slaves. The triumph of practicality over morality!

Of course, you can make the argument that some wizards are smart enough to invest and own some Muggle companies, boosting their net worth to higher numbers, but you would still see their income staying well below the numbers you would see on the Muggle side.


	2. Chapter 2 On the Subject of Lords

**On the subject of Lords**

The British system of Peerage dates back many centuries. When a Lord dies, his son is automatically elevated to his title, regardless of age. For example, Eadwig (House of Wessex) became King at age 15 (955-959 A.D.) when his father's brother King Eadred died in 955 (his father died in 946). King Edward the Martyr took the crown in July 975 at age 13. And King Æthelred the Unready (978) ascended to the crown at age ten. King Henry the 3rd (Henry of Winchester, House of Plantagenet) was crownd in October 1216, less than a month after he turned nine. Henry the 6th (House of Lancaster) was born December 1421 and crowned King in August of 1422, not even making him one year old. Edward the 5th took the crown in 1483 when he was twelve. Edward the 6th took the crown in 1547 at age nine.

Nobles, of course, took their lead from the crown and followed the same rules. If a man held a peerage, his son would succeed to it; if he had no children, his brother would succeed. If he had a single daughter, his son-in-law would inherit the family lands, and usually the Peerage; more complex cases were decided depending on circumstances. Customs changed with time; Earldoms were the first to be hereditary, and three different rules can be traced for the case of an Earl who left no sons and several married daughters. In the thirteenth century, the husband of the eldest daughter inherited the Earldom automatically; in the fifteenth century, the Earldom reverted to the Crown, who might regrant it (often to the eldest son-in-law); in the seventeenth century, it would _not be inherited by anybody_ unless all but one of the daughters died and left no descendants, in which case the remaining daughter (or her heir) would inherit.

The King could assign a "guardian" or "regent" if no family members were available to rule in place of the young child until s/he could take the reins of responsibility.

In the Wizarding world, the King's prerogative would probably be replaced by the Wizengamot.

Harry's Wizard family is dead, and his godfather is "unavailable," so the King, in this case the Wizard's Wizengamot, following the traditions, would have appointed a regent for infant Lord Harry. In addition, only the King, again, the Wizengamot, can set aside the terms of a Will — but those terms must first be disclosed. Again, the rules regarding wills go back over a thousand years. Burying or sealing the Will is flatly illegal for all but the King or Queen. Concealing a Will and preventing its execution is a crime that leads straight to prison.

Thus, Harry Potter immediately became Lord Potter when his parents died. The Wizengamot should have appointed a regent to control his estates until he became old enough to assume direction of his estates himself. And old enough would be when he started making decisions instead of letting his regent do the decision making for him, not based on an arbitrary age limit. The idea that you have to be sixteen or eighteen before you are considered a legal adult is a fiction invented in the 1900's.

If there is some question as to who takes the position of Lord when the current Lord dies, then the contenders are all referred to as Apparent Heirs until the situation is resolved. In Medieval times that meant by whomever could purchase the better army or assassins.


	3. Chapter 3 Wizarding Age of Consent

**Wizarding Age of Consent**

What is the age of consent in the Wizarding World? Typically, authors choose sixteen, the legal age of consent in the U.K. as it is today, or seventeen, the Wizarding Age of Majority, chosen to delineate who could enter the Tri-Wizard Tournament. However, The International Statute of Secrecy, in 1689, forcibly separated the Wizarding World from the Muggle world. At that time, in the U.K., the age of consent was generally accepted as being ten to twelve years of age. It was only in 1865, after much lobbying by the public, that the age was raised to thirteen, with the power brokers in Parliament refusing to raise it farther.

Investigative journalist William Thomas Stead started a great scandal about child prostitution in 1885. He reported that girls were being 'acquired' from their parents and either placed in English whorehouses or shipped to the continent and placed in whorehouses there. In either case, the girls had little to no chance of escape. To illustrate what was happening — that is, to prove he wasn't just making up his facts — he purchased a thirteen-year-old girl from her mother and took her to an English whorehouse. Afterwards, the mother claimed she thought he was hiring her as a live-in maid.

Such was the severity of the public reaction that the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, feared riots on a national scale. He pleaded with Stead to cease publication of the articles. Stead refused, saying he would do so only if the age of consent was raised to sixteen. Parliament raised the age of consent to sixteen in that same year, where it has remained.

However, we know from the HP canon books that the Wizards pay little to no attention to the Muggle newspapers, and even less to the laws passed by their Parliament. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Wizengamot effected any changes in the age of consent law as they never experienced the tide of public opinion that first raised the age to thirteen and then to sixteen.

In addition, it is doubtful that the powerful families on the Wizengamot would want to change the law, just as the English Parliament refused to raise the age of consent from thirteen until the great scandal broke. As evidence of the likelihood of such opposition to change, Spain kept the age of consent at twelve until **_1999_**. France held the age of consent to be thirteen from 1863 until 1945, prior to that it was **_eleven_**. Across the pond, in the US, the state of Delaware held the age of consent at **_seven_ ** until 1920. And the American state of North Dakota held the age of consent at _**fourteen** _ until the 2000s. So I see no reason why the Wizards would have changed their Age of Consent laws when most of the Wizengamot was born in the 1800's!

Given the great importance of Hogwarts as marking the point where children can begin to train their magic at age eleven, it is likely that the Wizards would also choose that age as the most likely point to set the age of consent, by Custom, if not Law.

I had someone say that the Age of Consent should be the same as the Age of Majority because that was when the Wizards and Witches have sufficient control of their magic to be considered adults. However, based on J.K.R.'s comments in the books regarding how much effort is placed on preventing students from "snogging" it is clear that the physical growth of Wizards and Witches is unrelated to their magical abilities — their age is the only marker that matters to their magical cores. Otherwise Harry's obvious malnutrition-delayed physical development (he looked much younger than he really was) should have had a huge impact on his ability to do magic, and it didn't.

In addition, in the real world, the Age of Consent and the Age of Majority almost never coincide. Until 1970 in the U.K. the Age of Consent was sixteen while the Age of Majority was twenty-one! In the United State, the Age of Majority, when one can legally sign a contract, is eighteen, while the age of consent ranges by state from sixteen to eighteen. Mexican states have a "primary" age of consent which may be as low as twelve. According to Jewish tradition, adulthood is reached at age thirteen (the minimal age of the Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah) for Jewish boys and girls. The Christian Bible and Jewish scripture have no age requirement for adulthood or marrying, which includes engaging in sexual activity. According to _The Disappearance of Childhood_ by Neil Postman, the Christian Church of the Middle Ages considered the age of accountability, when a person could be tried and even executed as an adult, to be age _**seven**_.

So, trying to link Age of Consent and Age of Majority isn't true even in Muggle society! And suggesting that the Wizards would follow Muggle laws in England is equally ludicrous, as Canon quite clearly states they ignore Muggle laws. Canon also quite clearly indicates they are stuck in the Victorian Era where the Age of Consent was ten to twelve.


	4. Chapter 4 Marriage Contracts

**Marriage Contracts**

Marriage Contracts, while looked down on by many FanFiction authors, are not as unlikely as you might expect. In point of fact, they are quite common in the US where they are called _pre-nuptial agreements_. They are a common legal step taken before marriage. A prenup establishes the property and financial rights of each spouse in the event of a divorce, as well as the disposition and responsibility for any children born during the marriage. They can also be used to define marital responsibilities.

In an environment such as that described in Harry Potter, it would not be unlikely that such agreements would include inheritance rights for the children of the marriage. Or that such contracts might include the possibility of divorce should children not be conceived.

As for divorce, I see statements in many stories that marriage is forever. However, J.K.R. mentions in the books that Celestina Warbeck married three times and divorced two times. So, marriage, like in the Muggle world, need not be a forever situation.

As for more onerous conditions in fan-fiction Marriage Contracts, considering that the Victorian Era laws considered wives and children to be mere property, incapable of owing property in their own right, to be used and disposed of as needed by the husband, such conditions are not unreasonable. Others in the Victorian Era might go "tsk, tsk," but a man could beat his wife or child to death and no one would say he didn't have that right.


	5. Chapter 5 Use and Abuse of Author Notes

**Fanfiction Author Notes**

 ** _I ignore most pre- or post-Author Notes in Fanfiction because they are a waste of space. They:_**

A. repeatedly apologize for short posts (So what if it's short? I'm just glad you posted at all!),  
B. repeatedly apologize because they haven't posted sooner (your schedule is your schedule, no need to say a word),  
C. apologize for posting filler (If it's filler, it doesn't move the plot - why the heck are you wasting your time, and mine, writing that crap? Delete it and write something that moves the plot!),  
D. apologize for a boring post (So make it exciting! Blow something up!),  
E. complain they aren't happy with the post, the post is crap (If it's crap FIX IT! Don't post crap!),  
F. complain about how the post is crap because the French/Latin/other non-English is badly translated (See "E" above. Just say the translation is to the best of your ability and if anyone wants to improve it to send you a message!),  
G. complain about work/school/family/life (Poor baby . . . nobody cares unless you died and can't finish the story! I want to read the story, not your pathetic life),  
H. beg for reviews (Stop that! It sounds like you're an attention whore . . . or pathetic . . . or both.),  
I. complain about flames/anonymous reviews (Ignore the trolls! Don't waste your time, or mine, on those pathetic, lonely, attention whores),  
J. respond to individual reviews instead of using P.M. (If the answer is important enough that you feel you have to publicly do it, then it should be in the story! Otherwise, Private Message.)  
K. argue with or complement reviewers to no purpose (Every heard of Private Messaging? Use it! Stop wasting my time with things I don't care about!),  
L. bragging about how fast or hard it was to write the post (nobody cares, stop being an attention whore!).  
M. mention hidden "Easter Eggs" that the author cleverly placed in the story. (See L above.)  
N. Apologize for posting fluff. Why? If it serves a purpose (explaining motives, showing character, etc.) then it isn't fluff. On the other hand, if it doesn't move the story, build suspense, or reveal something important about the character(s) and how that effects the story, then why did you bother writing it?

 ** _After-post Author Notes are just as bad, except you can add:_**

O. bragging about how brilliant/great/clever that post was, or how clever you were with that plot device, or asking if you noticed how cleverly they inserted that pop-culture reference, etc. (Stop being an Attention Whore!),  
P. leaving spoilers about future posts with the solution to the problem(s) introduced in this post (Of course you're going to solve it in future post! Stop posting spoilers to your story! Twit).  
Q. Or worse, asking people if they liked your post! (Talk about being an attention whore, sheesh! Check your Traffic Stats!)

 ** _About the only things you need to put in an author's note are:_**

A. acknowledgements to proof readers and people who provided important details/plot developments/translation assists,  
B. details about the background story (i.e., how you figured the population numbers, why the class sizes are changed, size/location of the various places in your story if they differ markedly from other canon, etc.),  
C. Warnings about possible trigger events, violence, disturbing scenes, lemons, etc.  
D. occasionally remarking on unusual responses, such as the 1,000th review or a sudden flood, or dearth, of reviews.  
E. save Author Notes for unusual and important situations.

If you have grammar problems or prefer British/American spelling, state so at the beginning of the first chapter . . . and NOT every chapter thereafter (Most people are bright enough to remember this, the rest are trolls. Ignore them.)

The same goes for the obligatory acknowledgement that J.K. Rowling and her publisher own the rights to the Harry Potter universe and that we get to play there only with their kind permission. Once at the beginning of the story is sufficient, you needn't tell us every chapter.

Finally, if you do put in notes that are time related (i.e., "sorry this is so late" "my next post won't be for xx weeks" "Problems in life have prevented my posting recently" and so forth), then, for god's sake, when you post the NEXT chapter of you story, remove the note from the PREVIOUS chapter! Why leave up for all eternity that you can't keep to a schedule? It just makes you look bad!


	6. Chapter 6 Copyright Issues

**Copyright Law**

I've seen various authors get upset that someone has "stolen" their character, idea, or plot, or even lifted their entire story and posted it somewhere else, sometimes with the thief's name as author. They want FanFictionNet to do something to stop these "thieves."

These people do not understand Copyright Law.

Copyright law is very simple in concept. If you didn't originally create it, _it's not yours!_

The problems start when someone says, "But I changed it, therefore its mine!"

Nope. If you start with someone else's story — characters, scenes, plot, or any combination of these — and make _changes_ to it, that makes your story a _derivative work_! If you use the same characters as the original, but change the plot around completely, it is a _derivative work_ — you are using the original work's characters to draw attention to your story. If you change all the characters but keep the same general plot, it is still a _derivative work_ — you are using the original's plot and showing others how your characters would work in it.

Derivative works belong to the original author because without the original author's work, those works would not exist! That is, if you take _Prisoner of Azkaban_ and add your invented and original character to interact with Harry Potter, yours is a derivative work. If you take Harry and throw him into a western, yours is a derivative work because you are depending on the reader knowing and understanding the character.

The Supreme court has a simple method to determine if a work is original and deserves its own copyright or is a derivative work that belongs to the original author:

Remove all elements that are from the original work.

If the work stands on its own, then it is _NOT_ a derivative.

If your story depends on the J.K.R. Harry Potter universe for people to understand the characters and what's happening, then your story is a _derivative work_ and it belongs to J.K. Rowling.

So, with that understood . . .

First, J.K.R. and her authorized agents own the copyright on Harry Potter's universe.

Second, _only_ _the copyright holder_ can force a someone to cease publishing something that violates copyright.

Third, yours is a derivative work that _DEPENDS_ on the Harry Potter universe to be understood. Without the background and/or characters of that universe your story becomes meaningless.

Therefore, J.K.R. and her authorized agents are the _ONLY_ ones who can issue a Cease-and-Desist letter to anyone who "steals" your work. The FanFiction website operators have _no LEGAL_ standing to issue a C &D letter to any other website that copies and publishes a story from _their_ website site.

In other words, complain to J.K.R. about the "theft" of your work, just don't be surprised if J.K.R.'s lawyers decide to pull the plug on _ALL_ websites, including FanFiction, and wipe out the entire fan-fiction writing world of Harry Potter as too much trouble to deal with.

I know this is upsetting, but legally the FanFiction website operators **_can't_ ** prevent other websites from distributing the stories it publishes without endangering its _OWN_ ability to publish those stories.

That you feel outraged at others potentially profiting from your writing is unfortunate, and a direct consequence of your deciding to write stories in _someone else's_ universe. How do you think J.K.R. feels about people using _HER_ universe to build a writing reputation?

This copyright position is true, naturally, for all the different FanFiction universes, not just Harry Potter. So be very careful when you demand that someone "do something" about all those copyright violators stealing YOUR work in your favourite FanFiction universe. What you get might be the loss of the entire universe as the copyright holder decides to squash EVERYTHING, including your work.


	7. Chapter 7 Mrs Weasley & Platform 9 34s

_Changes made 7/19/2016, removed original Rant.  
_

 **Mrs. Weasley and Platform 9 3/4s**

I just discovered (May 2016) that back in July of 2015 J.K.R. replied in a tweet online that Magical Education was FREE in response to an article trying to determine the probable cost of an education at Hogwarts. That turns a lot of things in the H.P. fanfiction universe upside down, _including_ my rationale for why the Weasleys were so poor.

Given that Arthur Weasley works as a department head in the Ministry and earns significantly more than the average worker, just what is he spending all his money on? It certainly isn't on his children's education! The only thing I can think of is that the Weasley family owes a tremendous monetary debt to another party and all their free cash — like 90% — is going to service that debt.

And it must be a _huge_ debt because the Weasleys appear to be mostly self-sufficient with an orchard and extensive garden. It can't be that they spend everything on their home as it would be cheaper to sell it and use that on their debt while moving into an apartment and decreasing their payments. Because they remain in their home you can postulate that the money coming from the sale would not make a significant impact on the debt, thus all their money is going not to pay the principle on the debt, but the interest. Or, perhaps he has a mistress on the side and he spends all their money on her. But I can't see Molly allowing that.

In any event, this leaves them poor, and they have been poor for a considerable amount of time as everyone knows they are poor and it isn't a recent event that is responsible (Ron's comments about hand-me-downs and Draco's comments about their finances). Buying school supplies is _never_ cheap, and buying them for multiple children, and their clothes, is a big expense for any family.

As for what Mrs. Weasley says at the train station, the only interpretation is that she is an airhead or has an agenda. First, she knows she's in a Muggle train station. Second, she either doesn't care or has another agenda.

Why she would be doing this is unknown. After all, she had to have accessed Platform 9 3/4s twice a year for at least seven years herself, using the floo until she was old enough to apparate. And then twice a year minimum from the time Bill was of Hogwarts age until this point in time, at least nine consecutive years. And the address has remained the same the entire time. Does she have a memory problem or what?

I've had several readers mention that she is asking for the Platform number to teach her child, Ginny. Why? Every time she will visit the station it will always be with her mother or her father. This is not like a home address or a home phone number. And the only reason you teach a child that stuff is so that if the child gets lost they can tell an adult where they were going and get the adult to help them.

But that rationale fails when you are a Magical child in a Muggle environment. So, teaching Ginny the Platform number would actually be a violation of the Secrecy Act. If she becomes separated from her parents she would be telling every adult — 99% of whom would be Muggles and would have no idea what she was talking about, as Harry discovered — that she was looking for a non-existent Platform and creating a ton of work of the Obliviators. She and her mother would get into a lot of trouble for willfully violating the Secrecy Act — her for doing it and her mother for teaching her to break the law.

And, honestly, can you imagine going to Chinatown looking for an address and saying, "Just crowded with Chinese. . . " loud enough for someone several feet away to hear you? (Gadzooks! I'm in Japan, and just look at all these foreigners!) Airhead for sure. And I've been in crowded train stations, unless you're standing right beside someone, the noise level of the machinery and people talking and yelling makes it difficult to hear anything someone a few feet away says. So, for Harry to hear her, she had to be talking rather loudly. No situational sense at all. Or someone with an agenda.

So, why was she on the Muggle-born side of the entrance? Was that part of a plot?

This year, Harry's first, is the second year that Weasleys have _FOUR_ kids in Hogwarts (Ron, Fred, George, and Percy, the previous year was Fred, George, Percy, and Charles). Next year they will have _FIVE_ (add in Ginny). Before this year they just floo'd or apparated to the train station and landed directly on the platform (if ALL students had to use the Muggle-born entrance then you would have 1,000+ people accessing the entrance in a short time, at least one person every two seconds would have to pass through in an hour — not exactly unnoticeable, even Harry would have seen the queue!).

Side-along apparation is not easy, and expecting the woman to repeatedly side-along apparate each child and his luggage and then return for the next child is unreasonable. Not to mention the chaos that would ensue as she left each child _alone_ to retrieve his luggage, and then the next child.

Floo'ing is simpler, but more expensive. And we know from canon that the Weasley family knut-pinches every bit of floo powder they use. With the bills inherent in a boarding school, that's no surprise.

Also, she came from a family that wasn't nearly as strapped for money as the Weasleys, having only three children in Hogwarts at one time, so she never had to use the Muggle entrance at King's Cross Station. This is the first time she has ever not used the floo or apparated. However, both those other methods also use the designation of Platform Nine and Three-quarters, so she had to be well aware of the address!

Thus, in order to save on floo expenses, and the very real possibility of splinching one of the children and/or their luggage if mom tired to apparate all four either together or sequentially, they have used the car to drive to the Station, thus making this the _first time_ the family used that entrance.

However, her remarks about the Muggles and being uncertain of the platform number? Well, either she's an airhead (Yes, I had a New Yorker friend in New Hampshire say to me, while we were walking through the parking lot at a mall, "Gosh, look at all the out of state license plates!" They were all New Hampshire plates, of course. Yes, she was a bit of an airhead, but not a blonde!), or she was told by a master manipulator to look for a lost Half-blood by the name of Harry Potter. A manipulator who knew she was going to use the Muggle-born entrance this year.

So, take your choice: a frazzled mother with five children in tow in a crowded train station (not unreasonable, really); or a cog in the manipulation of Harry Potter.


	8. Chapter 8 Silly House-elf Names

**Silly House-elf names**

I keep reading fanfics where the authors give normal names to the House-elves. These authors haven't considered the problems that would create. House-elves respond when they hear their name. If they have normal names, like Sally, Tim, Sue, and so forth, then the poor House-elves will be responding to thousands of people a day saying one of those normal names. Hence, they are given names that are NOT used by Wizards, Witches, or Muggles.

But, you ask, wouldn't the house-elves _only_ respond to family members using their name? That works until someone in a large extended family, like the Blacks, decides they want to use one of those names for their kid. Yeah, you could change the house-elf's name, but then you have to tell everyone in the family and get them to remember that the name they've been using for decades is now different! Any kid who has tried to get his parents to start calling him "Jim" instead of "Jimmy" will tell you how difficult THAT is.

And for the Pure-bloods, especially the kids, they would quickly associate the names given to House-elves as being derogatory. They would gleefully tell any Muggle-born how appropriate their name is as they are suitable only for being House-elves and not real Wizards.

And imagine the mess at Hogwarts with a hundred or so elves with the same names as students! For example, if an elf were named John James, then every time a professor said Mr. James, a house-elf would appear! A business such as a large farm, ranch, or manufacturer would have the same problem, when was Master saying an employee's name versus a house-elf? Or what if a young Wizard at a his first new job meets someone whose extended family has a House-elf with the same name? Yeah, I can just see a new hire saying to another employee, "Sorry, Henry, I have to call you 'Terry' because we have a house-elf named Henry." At that moment there is a POP and a house-elf appears, "Master has called Henry?"

And using foreign names has the same problem. What if you're in a business meeting and you meet someone from the foreign country you used as a source to name your house-elves? Oops! Every time you say his name up pops your house-elf. Do you think a Pure-blood Wizard from another country might be a little offended that you call your house-elf using his name? Especially if said Pure-blood considers House-elves to be little more than necessary pests? What a way to ruin a business deal!

Even more embarrassing, imagine just being out of Hogwarts at you first job in a restaurant and telling the customer, "Hello, my name is Jack, I'll be your server tonight." He or she says, "Thank you, Jack." POP "Master has called Jack?" "Ah, well," you say, "Just call me Mud for the rest of the evening!" Imagine the problem this would create if a Wizard and his family were at a Muggle restaurant and responding to the Muggle waiter/waitress? Call the Obliviators!

So, giving house-elves names that will NEVER be used by a parent is the only reasonable solution. And while we might find them silly, I'm sure the House-elves consider them quite distinguished.


	9. Chapter 9 House-elf Names, Redux

**House-Elves, Redux**

From _FredFred_ , an effective rebuttal, edited from several PMs between the two of us:

House-elves appearing whenever someone (who's entitled to give them orders) says the elf's name in casual conversation is a fanon invention, i.e. it doesn't happen anywhere in canon. So, situations like the hypothetical one in your previous rant on the subject:

 _I can just see a new hire saying to another employee, "Sorry, Henry, I have to call you 'Terry' because we have a house-elf named Henry." At that moment there is a POP and a house-elf appears, "Master has called Henry?"_

...aren't actually an issue because, in canon, it doesn't work that way.

However, it is certainly true that, in a great deal of HP fanfiction, house-elves are portrayed as behaving that way (i.e. "appearing whenever their master/mistress says their name, even in casual conversation"). It's become soo widespread in HP fanfiction that many people think it's actually that way in canon.

Of course, there must be some reason why the four named house-elves in canon have such strange (to human ears) names. (Hooky only appears as a statue in one of the video games, and may or may not be considered canon. Considering many such games contradict canon characters and places, I doubt we can consider him canon even if he does support my position.)

Now, Winky and Hokey were owned by 'Light' families (in that they don't support the Dark agenda), but we don't know whether Hokey was always owned by Hepzibah Smith or whether she was originally owned by a 'Dark' family — it's perfectly possible that she was already named "Hokey" by the time she came to work for Hepzibah Smith. Or perhaps the Smith family was originally Dark and changed over time. Given that Hufflepuff's Cup was a family heirloom that last is doubtful.

And in the case of Winky, Barty Crouch (the elder) may have been 'Light', but we know from his interaction with Winky in _Goblet of Fire_ that he does not treat her as anything remotely approaching an equal, nor does he seem to particularly care about her. He's certainly in no way kind or understanding. So it's fairly clear he sees her as an inferior being, and what's more, he has no qualms about displaying this in public, so why wouldn't he give her a name which exemplifies her 'inferior' status?

In fact, almost everyone in canon treats house-elves as 'inferior beings' and it's fairly clear that almost everyone in canon _thinks_ of them as 'lesser beings': the only people who don't are Hermione, Dumbledore and possibly Arthur Weasley (although he may simply be trying to placate Hermione). Even Harry treats them that way - he just has a soft spot for Dobby, _personally_ , but despite Hermione's best efforts he refuses to engage, at all, with the wider issues around the treatment of house-elves in wizarding Britain (except, arguably, towards the end of the final book). Consider how Amos Diggory (from another 'Light' family) treats Winky in the aforementioned scene in _Goblet of Fire_ : despite the fact that she's frightened (and completely innocent), he threatens and bullies her, and certainly treats her as a 'lesser being'.

So given all that, you don't need any special explanation for why wizards give house-elves 'silly names' in canon. In canon, the best a house-elf could reasonably hope for is to be treated as well as a family pet (in those families not inclined to animal cruelty), and so it is hardly surprising that they aren't given 'human' names, in the same way that cats and dogs are often given names we'd never use for another human. So it seems to me that there is a 'natural' logical reason for the names we see in canon: even the 'good' magical humans in canon see house-elves as 'lesser beings' and don't consider them as even vaguely morally equivalent to a human.

Having said all that, though, it should be pointed out that there are over a hundred elves at Hogwarts alone — and presumably many more around the rest of the British Isles — and we only know the names of three of them (Dobby, Winky, Kreacher) as well as the names of two others — Hokey and Hooky (if you count Hooky as part of canon). That's five out of a probable population of at least hundreds, which is hardly representative. For all we know, the rest of the house-elves don't have 'silly names.' So, if the other elves had sensible names, you'd only have to explain why the five we know about don't. Dobby and Kreacher can easily be explained by the wizarding supremacist nature of the families they originally served. Winky can also be easily explained in a similar fashion given Barty Crouch (the elder)'s high-handedness towards her. And we know so little about the circumstances of Hokey and Hooky that there could easily be any number of plausible explanations for their names.

As an addition to _FredFred_ 's reasoning, I would add that the reaction of almost the entire student body to S.P.E.W. (everybody thinks Hermione is nuts, nobody says, "Well, she's right, but just going about it wrong.") _implies_ that the silly name convention is deeply entrenched as simply a _custom_. Therefore, I still think it is unlikely that any of the House-elves would have names that we consider normal. And considering that few, if any, of the Muggle-born ever earn enough to afford a House-elf themselves, I doubt that the "equality" attitude of giving the House-elves "normal" names would ever have a chance of actually happening.

So, no Sallys, Toms, Henrys, et cetera, would ever appear as House-elves.

On the other hand, how do we know that the WIZARDS are doing the naming? Maybe these are the names the House-elves' parents chose for their children! And, in the interest of fairness and equality, isn't it rather demeaning and insulting to think that the Wizards have the right to give their House-elves their names? And aren't the authors, by insisting on giving their house-elf a "normal" name in their story, perpetuating the very problem they want to solve? That is, that the House-elves are incapable of choosing names for their children?


	10. Chapter 10 Bad Latin Grammar

**Bad Latin Grammar**

Many authors decry the use of grammatically incorrect Latin as the language of spell-craft in Harry Potter. Again, these authors are missing very obvious points.

If English is used there is the very real danger of Wizards and Witches harming themselves or others when just speaking. For example, a kid at Hogwarts is carrying his wand and responds to a comment from a friend with, "Well, that's a ticklish problem," and accidentally shoots a tickling spell in a random direction. Or, in reaction to a surprise, says, "Blast it!" and accidentally blows up a wall or door.

Remember, Moody warns Harry not to carry his wand in his back pocket because Moody knew a fellow who cursed off his own buttocks by accident — and that was using their bad Latin! Using English for spells would be far worse. Consider the dangers inherent in a small child grabbing his/her parent's wand and running around yelling out random words "pretending" to cast spells and causing who know how much havoc as REAL spells fly everywhere.

As for bad Latin versus correct Latin? You have the same problem. Sure, Latin is a "dead" language, but prior to about 1950 all well-educated people were EXPECTED to know and understand Latin, and many university thesis were written in Latin. If you could not read and write Latin you were considered poorly educated and looked down on by everyone who _could_ speak it.

I would assume that the Wizards, with hundreds of years without the lax teaching standards of modern schools would keep up that tradition. So, you would have the same problems. More limited perhaps, but still I'm sure you'd have many Wizards and Witches saying, "I shouldn'ta said that!" after accidentally blowing something up with their wand because they accidentally said a spell command while reading a Latin text aloud.


	11. Chapter 11 Dumbledore IS a DarK Lord

**Why Albus Dumbledore _IS_ a Dark Lord.**

While the old Wizard likes to project the image of a grandfatherly figure, he is not a Light Wizard as the books and movies portray him. Albus Dumbledore is shown as a wise, intelligent Wizard who carefully thinks and plans far ahead, always appearing to be concerned about "doing what is right, not what is easy." He continually talks of The Greater Good, implying that he means for the Greater Good for all Wizards.

He is, instead an evil Dark Wizard, manipulating and treating people as mere pawns in his game to control the Wizarding World to his own benefit and aggrandization.

Or else a bumbling incompetent who would put The Three Stooges to shame.

Let's total things up that no self-respecting person of reasonable intelligence would allow to happen, or continue to happen, in a school full of children. While some of these might be just nitpicks or have a more mundane explanation, taken together they paint a very **_DARK_** picture of Dumbledore, his methods, and his goals. Someone doing something once that harms you is an accident, twice is coincidence, and three times is malicious intent. And this list is far, far many more times than just three.

.

If he were a powerful and _wise_ Light Wizard, why did he:

1\. Do NOTHING when he knew that Tom Riddle was bullying the students in the Orphanage? Given he knew that all teenagers have poor impulse control, surely he realized the grave risk that Riddle posed to the Statute of Secrecy? The kids were already terrified of him and the adults knew something was wrong. It would be merely a matter of time before he revealed magic to them. There had to be someone he could have told. Surely there are Wizarding Orphanages, it beggars the mind to think that only Muggles have situations where the parents die leaving their child an orphan.

2\. Not take the child under his wing and try to prevent him from going dark, as he surely suspected was happening?

3\. Do nothing to prove Hagrid was innocent? He could have reported his suspicions to the Ministry and asked for a trial — you know, Veritaserum and pointing out that only a Parseltongue could control Slytherin's creature — despite his Headmaster's insisting on using the half-giant as a scapegoat. Or after he became Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot and could order a review of the case.

4\. Fail to use Moaning Myrtle's testimony to prove that Hagrid was innocent. If her ghost did not immediately appear, then when she finally did.

5\. Ignore clear evidence that Slytherin's monster was a Basilisk, that one of the entrances to the Chamber of Secrets was in the toilets where Myrtle died, and then fail to seal up that entrance to protect the school and students?

.

And then he became Headmaster of Hogwarts. Would an intelligent _Light_ Wizard:

6\. Allow his students to be exposed to date-rape drugs (love potions, sleeping draughts), date-rape spells ( _stupefy_ , _obliviate_ ), and then, eventually, the _Imperius Curse_ , without any kind of warnings or supervision, or even a spell to watch for those enchantments? Especially considering the self-centered impulsive nature of teenagers. And if a Death Eater considers rape, torture, and murder to be recreations, why should he deny himself in the school when he knows he can get away with it using _obliviate_?

7\. Hire/keep clearly incompetent teachers (Binns, Trelawney, and later Snape, Quirrell, and Lockhart just to name the most egregious)? If the Board of Governors controlled hiring/firing (not likely given it was Dumbledore who hired Trelawney), then why didn't he go to the press with his problems, explaining how the students were receiving inferior educations?.

8\. Not only keep a known Death Eater (Snape) from going to Azkaban after the war for righteous punishment, but also give him a job teaching children? If he needed him close by, make him the janitor instead of Filch!

9\. Abandon a fifteen-month-old toddler on a doorstep, in NOVEMBER, in ENGLAND. What if Harry had woken up and wandered away? Or someone else had wandered by and picked him up? You could argue he put warming, sleeping, and protective spells on the baby, but _nothing_ in Canon supports that.

10\. Leave an innocent man to rot in Azkaban for twelve years without a trial and never once visited him to see where he'd "gone wrong" (where was Sirius Black's "second chance"?); said innocent man also just so happened to be Harry's legal guardian?

11\. Fail to investigate a scar on a toddler caused by an extremely Dark Curse? And if he did, leave the curse to fester?

12\. Think that finding a safe way to remove the toddlers Dark Tainted scar was not worth his time? And even suggest the scar might be useful?

13\. Ignore 10 years of child abuse despite having a spy in the same neighborhood who was that child's regular babysitter and despite having other Order members checking up on him (look at early _Philosopher's Stone_ where Harry mentions that a lot of people have treated him oddly and then in _Order of The Phoenix_ where at least one of those people turned out be a member of the Order)?

14\. Allow three-quarters of his students to be traumatized by Snape for at least fifteen years? Just think about what long term effects that would have on, say, the number and type of people in careers that require NEWT level potions like AURORS, HEALERS, and POTIONEERS. Is it any wonder that the Ministry fell so quickly the second time around? When you get a consistent series of complaints about favoritism and hostility crossing years of students about a teacher, doesn't that suggest something is wrong? And what kind of administrator, especially a wise Light Wizard, ignores complaints like that?

15\. Allow students to name-call, bully, and attack other students to the degree that students **_REGULARLY_** ended up in the Hospital Wing? Marauders' era and Harry's years are prime examples. The entire staff would end up in court if Hogwarts were a Muggle school!

16a. Ignore the presence of an illegal animagus for five years (Scabbers – Percy and Ron).

or

16b. Deliberately turn off the Protection Enchantment warnings on animagi so that any evil Wizard can sneak into the school to cause harm to the students he's supposed to protect.

Or do you find it plausible that no Wizard in a thousand years needed Protection Enchantments to protect himself from an enemy he knew was an animagus, and thus, such Protection Enchantments do not exist? Using McGonagall as a reason why they are off fails because it is quite clear from Canon that Protection Enchantments can be adjusted to allow individual exceptions, otherwise no Dark students would ever be allowed in the school. That is, allowing Remus inside the Protection Enchantments during the last battle in _Deathly Hallows_ would have allowed ALL Werewolves free passage, which clearly didn't happen. Similarly, if Draco hadn't already been a student when he took the Dark Mark, he wouldn't have been allowed back into school, the Protection Enchantments would have prevented him from crossing them, just as they prevented the rest of Voldemort's followers from passing through and requiring great effort to bring down the Protection Enchantments during the last battle.

.

(First Year)

17\. Bring the Sorcerer's Stone to a school full of children, put it behind protections that wouldn't stop three first-years — while KNOWING that an evil Wizard/Witch, most likely Voldemort, was after it — and thus endanger the lives of ALL the children under his supervision? Surely any Dark Wizard capable of the cold-blooded killing of others would not hesitate to slaughter any children he found in his way.

18\. Endanger the lives of curious students by keeping a Cerberus behind a door that wasn't even properly locked considering that a _First-year_ was able to get it open?

19\. Fail to notice that the one student he watches above all others suffers from neglect and malnutrition? Hello? How incompetent is Madam Pomfrey to fail to notice and report to the Headmaster her findings the very FIRST time Harry is brought into the Hospital Wing? Unless, of course, she was ordered by Dumbledore to ignore those findings.

20\. Fail to detect that Voldemort was living inside of Quirrell for an entire school year? What are Protection Enchantments for, if not detecting Dark Artefacts and creatures when they cross the school's boundaries?

21\. Fail to notice that his D.A.D.A. Professor who has a talent for controlling Trolls doesn't bother to control a Troll when it invades the school? (Protection Enchantment failure number two!) And faints at the thought of a Troll? And yet manages to coerce a Troll into the Philosopher Stone protections?

22\. Fail to notice that his GROUNDSKEEPER is illegally raising a DRAGON? Protection Enchantments, again, should detect such dangerous and dark creatures, or what use are they?

23\. Discover the Groundskeeper took four First-years into the highly dangerous Forbidden Forest, at night, for a detention knowing they might run into an evil creature capable of killing Unicorns and then fail to punish the Groundskeeper for such bad judgement? And why didn't the Protection Enchantments report this creature crossing their boundaries?

24\. Take the slowest method possible to travel to the Ministry for a fake appointment, taking all day to travel to and fro on a broom when a simple Floo trip would take less than an hour? (Remember, he said he found out as soon as he arrived that it was a ruse, and immediately set out to return — via the slowest method possible for a Wizard to travel. Hello? Ever heard of Apparation or Flooing?) Especially knowing that Voldemort was trying to steal the Stone? (Remember, in _Philosopher's Stone_ Hermione says, ". . . he already knew — he just said, 'Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?'")

25\. Send the students involved in the fight against Voldemort below the school home without securing counseling for all three after an extremely traumatic experience?

26a. Send a student back into a _known_ abusive environment without any protections?

or

26b. Fail to _verify_ that he is sending a student back to a safe environment?

.

(Second Year)

27\. Ignore the obvious malnutrition and abuse his most important student has suffered over the summer when the boy returns in September?

28\. Conceal the existence of the Basilisk and its attacks on the students from the authorities, school staff, and parents? Or, if in 50 years he hasn't figured out that Slytherin's monster was a Basilisk with an entrance to the Chamber of Secrets in Myrtle's bathroom, just how dumb is he?

29\. CONTINUE to leave open a KNOWN entrance to the Chamber of Secrets? Hint: where was Myrtle when she died? (And Dumbledore knew when and how she died because he was in the school teaching when it happened!)

30\. Fail to protect a student from rampant false and cruel rumours from the entire school except four? See item 15., Bullying, above.

31\. Fail to acquire Mandrakes for a vital potion to restore petrified students? Surely England isn't the _only place in the world_ that uses Mandrakes? The Southern Hemisphere has the opposite climate so their Mandrakes should be maturing in November. And if the school can afford a year's worth of ingredients for the expensive Wolfsbane Potion — Remus — they can afford a couple of cheap common Mandrakes for a one-time use.

32\. Do nothing after repeated potentially fatal attacks on the students? (Such as evacuate the school!)

33\. Again, after an extremely traumatic and life-threatening incident involving Voldemort below the school, send the affected students home without securing counseling, even though one of them was possessed by an evil Wizard for the **_ENTIRE_** school term?

34a. Return a student to a known abusive environment, again?

or

34b. Fail to _verify_ , again, that he is sending a student back to a safe environment, again?

35\. After getting confirmation of the existence of Horcruxes, DO NOTHING to verify if there are more than one? If Harry, Ron, and Hermione can figure out where the remaining horcruxes are in a single year, why can't Dumbledore manage the same in FIVE years? Or are those three just that much _smarter_ than the great Dumbledore?

36\. Still think that finding a safe way to remove the scar, now known as a horcrux, was not worth his time? Or is Dumbledore so incompetent that he can't recognize evil Dark magic even with a duplicate with the exact same evil taint in front of him?

.

(Third Year)

37\. Allow Dementors to surround the school AFTER one of them has made a go at sucking the soul out of a student in defiance of their commands? Hey, if they defied orders once, what makes him think they won't do it again? Sure, the Ministry wants them there, but in lieu of the attack on Harry, he should threaten to close the school while delivering the whole story to Rita Skeeter — she would rip the entire Ministry apart for endangering ALL the souls of the students. But Dumbledore simply caves to the Ministry. No guts. Or it's part of his evil "Greater Good" plans.

38\. Ignore, for the _third_ time, signs of abuse, neglect, and malnutrition in his favorite student?

39\. Ignore a second Dementor attack on the entire student body during a Quidditch match? And the almost death of his favourite student, Harry? That attack would guarantee headlines in the Prophet for DAYS, especially with the professors giving accounts how the children of many old families, both Dark and Light, almost lost their heirs.

40\. Fail to set the Protection Enchantments to detect the illegal animagus he knows is attempting to enter the school? Setting them, of course, would mean he "officially" would have to capture Peter Pettigrew making the rest of the book after November moot. Or perhaps he never turned them off and knows all about where Peter is hiding and what Sirius is doing.

41\. Again, after an extremely traumatic and life-threatening incident at the school, send the affected students home without securing counseling? By this time Harry is showing all the signs of suffering from extensive Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.) — nightmares, inability to stay on track, temper tantrums, et cetera. Just ignoring his obvious plight would get the staff at Hogwarts sacked if they were in a Muggle school.

42a. Return a student to a known abusive environment, again?

or

42b. Fail to verify that he is sending a student back to a safe environment, again?

.

(Fourth Year)

41\. Ignore, again, signs of abuse, neglect, and malnutrition in his favorite student?

42\. Fail to realize that Barty Crouch Jr. is impersonating the new D.A.D.A. professor, Alastor Moody, a very good friend and confidant for decades?

43\. Fail to understand that there are ADULTS who wish to harm his favourite student, even though he's had three years of adults in the school doing just that — every year his D.A.D.A. professor has tried to kill him, even Remus as a werewolf — and fail to provide more than a simple "Age Line" around the Cup to prevent someone from entering Harry into the Tri-Wizard Tournament?

44\. Fail to enter Voldemort's name in the contest? There are bound to be at least a few parchments in Hogwarts' records with Tom Riddle's signature on them — and Dumbledore doesn't HAVE to announce the name on the paper. (Hey, when the twit fails to complete the first task, MAGIC strips him of his magic, effectively killing him AND ALL OF THE HORCRUXES! How stupid _IS_ Dumbledore? And while you might say that this isn't an obvious solution to the Dark Lord problem, Dumbledore is acclaimed to be one of the wisest Wizards alive — apparently NOT.)

45\. Fail yet again to deal with the obvious hostility and bullying displayed against Harry by everyone except Hermione as they shun and denigrate him because they think he cheated to enter the Tournament? (see 15. above) All Dumbledore has to do is stand up and say that he categorically knows (mind reader, remember?) that Harry did not enter the Tournament, and that the person who did that wants the underage boy maimed or dead.

46\. Regarding Hermione's experience with hate mail, fail to screen all mail for harmful hexes, curses, and dangerous substances such as bubotuber pus? Not to mention failing to have the House-elves segregate Howlers until after they've finished. Hermione can't have been the very _first_ student in Hogwarts' history to have been targeted by hate mail.

47\. Fail to protect Barty Crouch, Junior, from a Dementor? The Protection Enchantments had to tell him that the Dementor was IN the castle, why didn't he take steps to protect this vitally important prisoner?

48\. Fail to release his memories of Bart Crouch, Junior's confession to Rita, with confirming memories from other witnesses? Rita would tear apart the Minister for killing such an important prisoner without first interrogating him. Plus, having most of the staff as witnesses would convince the students that Voldemort _WAS_ back.

49\. Again, after an extremely traumatic and life-threatening experience involving Voldemort, send the affected students home without securing counseling, even though one of them witnessed the death of a fellow student at his side? PTSD, anyone?

50a. Return a student to a known abusive environment, again?

or

50b. Fail to verify that he is sending a student back to a safe environment, again?

.

(Fifth Year)

51\. Fail to consult with Harry, a teenager, about a near-death experience, again, during the summer and discover his side of the story?

52\. Fail to consult with a teenager about a possibly life-changing legal trial?

53\. Ignore, again, signs of abuse, neglect, and malnutrition in his favorite student?

54\. Allow everything Umbridge did? Hey, the press might not like Dumbledore, but a teacher actively torturing students? Just send a letter to Rita about things and she would be there in bug form before the night was out. Rita would tear the Ministry apart! Not to mention Umbridge guaranteeing poor D.A.D.A. scores for the year – that alone would see her in court! The Pure-bloods might not mind the Half-blood and Muggle-born being ineptly taught, but they would raise bloody hell about THEIR children getting short-shrift.

55\. Fail to explain why Harry has a "true" vision of the attack on Arthur, and why that's important. Even just a note would work.

56\. Allow a Death Eater to repeatedly mind-rape Harry and never bother to explain, either by letter or in person, why Occlumency is important? Nor give Harry any other alternatives for learning it?

57\. Wait too long tell Harry about the prophecy?

58\. Again, after an extremely traumatic and life-threatening experience involving Voldemort, and the death of his godfather, send Harry and the other affected students home without securing counseling, even though most of them suffered life-threatening injuries? P.T.S.D., anyone? At this point Harry would be considered extremely unstable by every measure in the Muggle world, bordering on insane, and be sent to a mental institution for a suicide watch and treatment.

59a. Return a student to a known abusive environment, again?

or

59b. Fail to verify that he is sending a student back to a safe environment, again?

60\. Order his friends to ignore him and isolate him from all means of emotional support, thereby reinforcing his sense of loss and P.T.S.D.?

.

(Sixth Year)

61\. Take an entire year to pass on information that should have only taken, at most, an extended weekend?

62\. Ignore Draco Malfoy joining a terrorist group and repeatedly attempting to commit murder, even when a student was severely injured and sent to St. Mungos? Knowing that Draco was behind the attack and failing to inform the Aurors makes him an accessory to attempted murder.

63\. Fail to take backup when retrieving a known Dark Artefact of great power, the Gaunt ring horcrux?

64\. Entrust the fate of the World to a TEENAGER without ANY sort of adult backup?

.

So, based on this, do you think Dumbledore is a Dark Lord or just incredibly stupidly incompetent?


	12. Chapter 12 Are the Potters Lords?

**Are the Potters Lords?**

The only ones referred to as Lord in the books are Lord Voldemort and several long-dead Wizards. The only Family/House called either Ancient or Noble is House Black.

It seems rather unbelievable that there aren't _any_ other Noble or Ancient Houses, nor that all the Lords are now dead. Voldemort doesn't count because he made his up. And almost any family that was rich and powerful a thousand years ago was considered Nobility. Rich merchants were a rarity.

The lack of mention of other Lords, or Ancient and Noble Houses, is most likely due to Harry's being so secluded at all times in the books. He didn't exactly get out and about into Wizarding society, so we have a rather one-sided point-of-view.

For a society so hung up on "pure-blood," with a "Sacred 28" list of those they considered pure enough, I don't think the pride of the personages involved would allow them to let _only_ the Black family to be called Lords, nor Ancient and Noble, when they could get away with it themselves. Especially when they can trace their Wizarding family roots back almost as far as the Black family. In such a situation I would expect them to develop a whole, "my family is older than yours" mentality.

Living in New England, I've seen such pissing contests first hand, and many were quite funny to behold because the people doing the arguing were so serious! (It would be so much fun to watch an American Indian walk up and say, "So, my family has been here for 12,000 years, you guys don't even count!")

Therefore, I think it not unreasonable to believe that any family with deep enough roots would end up calling themselves "Noble" and bribing the King-at-the-time to ennoble them (Because only the King can ennoble a family, creating such Lords would cease with The Statute of Secrecy). Or lied about it after the Statute severed relations. And then ranking themselves according to whose family has been in England the longest.

Pottermore, for example, has a history of the Malfoys where it says they were quite rich and influential when the Statute of Secrecy was enacted, and if you were rich and influential in the 1600's you almost always were a Lord. It farther mentions that when the Statute of Secrecy was enacted, the English Wizards went to the King and asked for Muggle protection. Only powerful Lords would consider petitioning the King with any hope of success. For commoners to present a petition would likely end with them all in prison.

How families were selected for representation in the Wizengamot is unknown, and arguments for them having provisions for adding families can be made, although it is revealed in Order of the Phoenix that Malfoy House does NOT have a seat on the Wizengamot, so there must be provisions for removing a House from the Wizengamot.

Based on the fact that the Potters own as a heritage item one of the Deathly Hallows, the Cloak, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Potter House dates back to well before the founding of Hogwarts.

Hence, most other Fanfiction writers make that assumption and come up with different rationales as to how and why the Potters dropped their association with the Peverell family.

In any event, I find it quite logical to assume that many of the Pure-blood Houses call the head of the household "Lord," as well as referring to their Houses as Noble or Ancient, or both, depending on how far back each can trace their roots. Any house established after the Statute of Secrecy is likely NOT considered Noble, unless it is the re-establishment of a dormant House.


	13. Chapter 13 Is Molly an Abusive Parent?

**Is Molly an Abusive Parent?**

Our first view of Molly makes her sound like a typical overburdened mother running late for an appointment with four disorderly children. Harry is lost and confused trying to find Platform 9 3/4s, when we hear Mrs. Weasley talking about Muggles and grousing about finding the right Platform. Harry hears this as she passes right behind him.

After seeing the pranking the twins pull on the poor woman, most readers feel sympathetic towards her. The send-off by the train sounds like a typical parent sending off their kids to camp.

As the books progress, though, we see Molly as overbearing, controlling, and mean-spirited. The mean-spirited comes out as we see her compulsive Howler sending to anybody who upsets her. As if sending a Howler would change the recipient's behavior. All it really does is humiliate the receiver in front of his or her peers — especially at Hogwarts — and sets them up for teasing and farther humiliation as the _other_ kids make fun of the recipient.

On the other hand, the entire Wizarding world seem to take a laissez-faire attitude towards parents using howlers, as we hear from Neville in _Chamber of Secrets_ when he confides that his Gran sent him one once and notice that no one besides the Muggleborn seems in the least bit surprised at the howler arriving.

It is rather obvious when she is screaming at the twins and Ron for taking their father's flying car in _Chamber of Secrets_ that she stops and politely tells Harry to go inside, then tries to start right up inside where she stopped when she tells their father what they did. I've known many angry parents, but only those with control issues keep verbally beating and beating on their kids long after a reasonable person would have considered it over.

That she is obsessively controlling appears as she takes over Harry's life and orders him about. Starting with _Chamber of Secrets_ , when they visit Diagon Alley she takes his vault key and dictates what he can and cannot purchase. And then apparently keeps the key, as no mention is made of it being given to anyone else for safe-keeping when Harry doesn't need it for the next six years. That Harry is a child of eleven/twelve partly excuses this attitude at this point, but not when he is fifteen and sixteen and she works quite hard at ordering his life and interactions with others. I opened a savings account for my daughter when she was eleven and she decided how much she took out and when, although we always discussed with her what she wanted to spend the money on each time.

That she clearly feels "mother knows best" and no one can change her mind with facts, even when it is patently obvious she doesn't know best, illustrates that she is a female version of the secretive plotting and controlling Dumbledore, just without the magical power.

All of these things rise to ridiculous levels after the _Prisoner of Azkaban_ where she all but takes over 12 Grimmauld Place. She immediately sets out to make the place over without regard to Sirius', the owner's, wishes. She orders the kids around, including Harry. She has them cleaning the place, by hand and without magic, when she is told repeatedly that any magic casted in the house is undetectable and perfectly safe. She continues to do this even to the point where the children are in danger of injury. She even insults Sirius and orders him about. She treats Sirius as if he should follow her rules when she is in HIS house!

We also see her treating her grown children as if they were little kids, and we begin to understand why Bill, Charlie, and Percy have ALL moved out of the Weasley household, usually to another country! She harps continually on the older children to get jobs with the Ministry, ignoring their preferences entirely and denigrating the jobs they do get.

What is even more incriminating is that none of the older children appear to assist their parents in their poverty. If the Weasleys are so poor that Molly carefully checks the corners of her vault looking for money, then getting a few galleons a month from the grown children would be a HUGE help, yet that doesn't appear to be the case.

It is telling that when the twins set up their store they make sure they can live in an apartment above it. They can barely scrape enough together to start their business, but they would rather spend whatever extra they have to get an apartment above their business than use that money for the business by living at home if it means living with Molly!

And the way she prevents Harry doing anything useful regarding the Order of the Phoenix is another clue to her personality. Her constant refusals to allow Harry to participate in the meetings on the grounds "he's just a child," ring hollow when you consider how many times he has PERSONALLY dueled Voldemort, yet she refuses to acknowledge that Voldemort is after Harry specifically. She steadfastly refuses to see her children, and Harry, regardless of age, as adults. This attitude actively endangers Harry and her own children as she tries to prevent the other adults from teaching him, or them, anything that might help them survive their next encounter with Death Eaters or Voldie.

So, based on her actions, and the reactions of her children, I would have to say she was indeed an emotionally abusive parent, constantly degrading her children, controlling them, and making them miserable for daring to desire a life outside of her control.


	14. Chapter 14 Molly's Love Potions

_7/19/2016 - fixed a few typos_

 **Molly's Love Potions**

Is Molly a potion-happy manipulator who used potions to get the attention of and marry Arthur Weasley? And is still, perhaps, using them on him? Is she using potions to help Ron and Ginny land Hermione and Harry as spouses?

Well, Molly does openly admit during one of the family meals that she brewed a love potion in school ( _Prisoner of Azkaban_ , ch 5) to Hermione and Ginny, both of whom are giggling at the revelation. This is the only time she mentions this subject.

Many in fanfiction somehow believe that this means she used love potions to land Arthur and assisted Ron and Ginny in getting the attentions of Hermione and Harry.

Also consider this: Dumbledore says that Voldemort doesn't understand love because his mother used love potions to get Riddle Senior to marry her.

If Molly used love potions on Arthur, and still is, then that means that NONE of the Weasley children understand love. We have Tom Riddle's mother doing and how Tom doesn't understand love as a prime example of what can happen if you do that.

That would certainly explain why Ron and Ginny were such complete idiots regarding romance, i.e., Ron treating Hermione like dirt while claiming to love her, and Ginny not understanding that acting like a fangirl is counterproductive.

And also why Bill ended up marrying a Veela, a species of human with a totally different outlook on the concept of love. Charlie Weasley is never mentioned in a relationship. In fact, the only Weasley character in the books who comes _close_ to a normal love relationship is Percy with Penelope! And Percy is the one person that almost EVERYONE in Canon agrees is a complete git.

Then in _Half-blood Prince_ Harry suddenly can't live without Ginny. Previous to this time he regarded her simply as Ron's sister. Amortentia is seen and explained (does not create love — it creates a powerful infatuation and obsession), with the explanation mirroring exactly how Harry feels about Ginny through the book. It also mirrors how Ron acts toward Hermione. Remember, Harry hasn't shown any great feelings for Ginny beyond that of a typical friendship previously. And Ron acts jealous towards Hermione while ignoring her at best, or actively insulting her at worst, then entire rest of the time they are together.

So, at one look you have to suspect that potions were, indeed, involved in Harry and Hermione's relationships with Ginny and Ron.

But, on the other hand, love potions seem the very "in" thing, witness Romilda's potioning of Ron while aiming at Harry — and her lack of any meaningful punishment. And, from _Half-blood Prince_ , we see that Molly had Potions with Slughorn when she was in school. Because it seems that the curriculum at Hogwart's is slow to change, it is reasonable to think that Snape's lesson plans were the same as Slughorn's. That provides the explanation for her comment about brewing a love potion in school — it was a class _assignment_ , not her trying to potion someone! After all, you can now accuse Harry and Hermione of brewing love potions, can't you?

And, Harry's sudden attentiveness with Ginny can be considered a normal teenage hormonal obsession — he's a late bloomer and his experiences with the Dursleys have left him without any idea of how to act normally, incapable of differentiating infatuation with true love.

Of course, you also have the Amortentia brewing scene where Harry smells a scent that reminds him of Ginny, so it could very well be that Harry's sudden attraction to Ginny was simply due to him suddenly realizing that she was a girl and not simply Ron's sister.

As for Ron, he could be explained as having Asperger's Syndrome (actually, Harry's lack of proper parenting makes a good case for him behaving as if he had Asperger's as well). Asperger's Syndrome is a disorder in which a person has no idea of how to interact with other people and can't "read" other people's expressions and actions in terms of emotional import. If they haven't seen an interaction previously, then when they are in a new situation they literally have no idea how to act. That would also explain his resistance to changing his terrible eating habits — he doesn't realize that others are disgusted by how he eats because he doesn't recognize their expressions as being disgusted with him.

Meanwhile, Dumbledore continues on his way, blithely telling Harry that his "secret power" is love. And, surely knowing the Wizarding society's willful blindness regarding love and lust potions, he does nothing to protect Harry from any of the scores of witches who would certainly resort to such methods to land the riches and title of Lady Potter!

On the whole, the idea that the Weasley women were potioning Harry I find unsupported by Canon, but you can make the case, as I demonstrated above.


	15. Chapter 15 How Big is Wizarding Britain?

**How Big is Wizarding Britain?**

According to comments made by J.K.R. the number of British Wizards is around 3,000 and the number of students in Hogwarts is 1,000. However, based on the numbers of students mentioned in each year in the books the population should be 5,500. These numbers are clearly mutually exclusive.

Canon states that Wizards and Witches live much longer than Muggles. According to J.K.R. the life expectancy of a Wizard was 137 years in the 1990s, however the huge number killed by Voldemort in the 1970s — almost every family Harry encounters in canon lost relatives — skews that number downward rather drastically. I would assume that without his interference, the number would probably be 150.

But let's accept that 137 number. If you have 1,000 students in school, each _year_ has 142 students. Multiply 142 times 137 and you get 18,000. Even allowing for the standard drop in numbers as people die of old age, you would still have a total population in excess of 15,000.

On the other hand, if you use 3,000 as the total population and divide by 137, you get a total of twenty-two students per year (only two or three boys and two or three girls in each year), barely half the number you actually see mentioned in Canon. And you have the impossible situation where two-thirds of the population are under 18 (that is, with one thousand in school at ALL times, there must be at least one thousand pre-Hogwarts students at all times as well — which means that the death rate for graduated Wizards and Witches is sky-high! A direct contradiction of her 137 year average life-span)!

And if that last number is correct, then there is no way that Voldemort has as many followers as we see in Canon, there simply are not enough Pure-bloods to supply them. From what we see in Canon, half of the students are Pure-bloods, which if we accept the 3,000 number means that there are only about 500 Pure-bloods _out of school_ , and the rest are either too young or in school. And the others are either Half-blood or Muggleborn. And that 500 number is actually an upper LIMIT because a fair portion are too old to join the fight themselves. Not to mention that some of them are neutral or anti-Voldemort.

It is also quite impossible for the Ministry of Magic to operate: From _Goblet of Fire_ , regarding the quidditch world cup stadium: "Seats a hundred thousand . . . Ministry task force of five hundred have been working on it all year."

For that to be true virtually half the population of 1,000 adults have to work at the Ministry! And that would be if _no one_ was actually working _in_ the Ministry building itself. If you add the number of workers in the Ministry to the number who worked on the quidditch stadium, you end up with the entire adult population working for the Ministry — so, who's minding the shops in Diagon Alley and the little ones at home? A Ministry that employed 100% of the entire working population is called communism! Even if you stick with just the 500 paid workers on the stadium they STILL total 50% of the adult population. The Ministry couldn't even collect enough in taxes to PAY all those Ministry employees!

Clearly, a population of 3,000 Wizards is impossible.

What if we use the numbers demonstrated during the sorting, that is, that the incoming class has a total of forty students? Those numbers appear fairly consistent considering that during the Marauders era in the 1970's there didn't appear to be more students than when Harry was in Hogwarts, and the first Wizarding War didn't start heating up until midway through their schooling. Well, 40 times 137 gives us a population of 4,000 adults and approximately 680 under the age of 17 (remember, as the population ages the number drops from its theoretical 4,800). This is a bit better, but you _still_ have a Ministry that employs almost 25% of the population. While the number of Pure-bloods is higher, 2,000, making Voldemort's pool of supporter's greater, removing those who are too infirm or have children to care for makes it difficult for him to have a huge army of hundreds of dedicated followers. And this, of course, assumes that ALL Pure-bloods support Voldemort, which we know is not true. Plus, there are just too few Wizards and Witches to have a viable economy given those numbers.

Of course, J.K.R. _also_ has said she is terrible at math.

So there must be at least enough employees to keep the government running with 500 missing. I'd say that it's unlikely the government could function (to the extent that it ever does) with under, say, half. So that would place the Ministry at a top of around 1,000 employees.

In 2011 the U.K. had a population of 62 million, with 500,000 employed as civil servants, which gives a percentage of .8% — and most Britons will claim that their government is just a massive bureaucracy. Assuming that percentage transfers to the Wizard government, that means with a Ministry work force of 1,000 the total population must be 125,000.

Now, you could argue that the task force was 500 employees hired for that task, not that that many worked at the Ministry. But with almost thirty different departments and sub-departments, there has to be a minimum of 300 employees — with a substantial number in the Magical Law Enforcement Department (Aurors, Obliviators, Hit Wizards, etc.) balancing those in clerical positions with only one employee.

Using that 300 lower limit as our starting point, we get a magical population of 25,000. So, the Magical population must be between 25,000 and 62,000.

(As an aside, a Muggle town with a population of 25,000 has a between 250 and 500 employees, depending on services offered. For example, areas with large snowfalls would have a larger road services payroll than otherwise. Police range from 66 to 120. And most Muggle towns do not include licensing for state/national level activities, i.e., the Apparition testing, the OWLS and NEWTS that are required by the Wizarding government, and so forth. Those additional and uniquely magical activities supplied by the Ministry would increase the number of public servants.)

Now, what do those numbers mean for the economy? Remember my rant about a billionaire Harry? Take the number of adult workers and multiply by their income, and that gives you the Gross Domestic Production in the economy, and only a tiny percentage of that is owned as wealth by the ultra-rich.

With a 3,000 population, and given that we see most families have a stay-at-home mother, we have a total working population of about 600. The average income is about 2,000 galleons a year (assuming that the Average Wizard worker earns the same as the average British worker, which in 1991 was about 10,000 Pounds), so the economy is 1.2 million galleons — a tiny economy by anyone's measure. No millionaires in THIS economy! The maximum wealth you could expect would be .0065% of 10,000 galleons or so, and that would be the Black holdings.

Using the larger number of a population of 14,000 — based on Hogwarts having 1,000 students), we _still_ have a small economy of about 28 million galleons (the wealthiest person family/House would have a net worth of about 182 thousand galleons).

If you go for 37,000 (based on 300 employees in the Ministry) you get an economy 75 million where the wealthiest person has a net worth of 487 ,000 galleons.

If you go for 62,000 (based on 500 employees in the Ministry) you get an economy 125 million where the wealthiest person has a net worth of 812,000 galleons.

Of course, skewing all these numbers, in either direction, depending on your mood and math, are the half-bloods who left the Wizarding world because of the blatant discrimination.

So, if we use the numbers J.K.R. has mentioned in interviews, we end up with a rather small society, one far too small to support either the government or the wealth we see mentioned in the book. Certainly there wouldn't be huge rooms full of gold or large numbers of Aurors fighting Dark Wizards! And the world Wizarding population would only be 340,000 (assuming that the ratio of Wizards to Muggles is the same for the entire world), far too small to fill a stadium with a hundred thousand seats once you eliminate everyone who has a job they can't leave and the mothers who must stay at home with the kids. Not to mention those in the Far East and the Americas who wouldn't have the same traditions and sports as the Europeans.

It seems more likely that the Wizarding population is closer to that implied in the Canon statement about the Quidditch stadium that I mentioned above, meaning a Ministry with between 300 and 1,000 employees at that time.

I chose a population of 80,000 – 100,000. That gives me the most reasonable size where you could expect there to be any millionaires and still give a reasonable spread of wealth throughout the society without ending up with a banana-republic — where a hundred or so have all the wealth and everyone else is poorer than church mice and barely earning enough to eat. This also requires that there be several U.K. schools of magic because the student population is between 4,100 and 5,100. On the other hand, Hogwarts could be used to its full capacity — after all, in Canon students never seem to have any troubles finding empty classrooms at any time of the day during the week.

And, having myself attended a single High school that taught 5,000+ students every day, Hogwart's appears more than capable of doing that job — although you might need more than just four dormitories to handle all the students! And more dinning halls as well, unless you made the Great Hall MUCH bigger or made them eat in shifts. My school had three lunch-hour shifts that started at 10:30 and ran to 1:30. And the Sorting Hat at the beginning of every year would take over THREE HOURS if you allocated only 15 seconds for each student to run up, sit, put on the hat, and then waited until they sat at their table before starting the next! If you had the line starting right beside the stool, you could probably cut that to one hour by giving the students five seconds to sit, put on the hat, then stand.


	16. Chapter 16 Life Debts

**Life Debts**

It's rather unfortunate that J.K.R. plays so fast and loose with her definition of a Life Debt in her series, and what it takes to earn one as well as what it entails as an obligation. She is not consistent at all in its usage or terminology. She is always very vague and doesn't actually _use_ the term _Life Debt_ at all (from her usage fans have inferred that she meant Life Debt).

Regarding them, at the end of _Prisoner of Azkaban_ , where Dumbledore explains:

 _._

 _"_ _Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt . . . When one wizard saves another wizard_ _'_ _s life, it creates a certain bond between them_ _. . . and I_ _'_ _m much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter . . . ."_

 _"_ _I don't want a connection with Pettigrew!_ _"_ _said Harry._

 _"_ _This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me . . . the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life._

 _._

"He owes his life to you . . . in your debt . . . This is magic at its deepest." Well, in the absence of another definition, that certainly _sounds_ like a Life Debt, or at the very _least_ a Debt of Honor.

In _Sorcerer's Stone_ Harry reminds Ron about Hermione not knowing about the Troll at Halloween. Then, Harry, at great risk to his own life, and without any obligations whatsoever — he barely knows the girl — jumps on the troll to distract it. He could have remained relatively safe by the exit door and just threw debris at the Troll as Ron did. Finally, the two successfully save Hermione's life. However it is clearly Ron's fault that the girl was in the bathroom in the first place and hence she cannot owe him a Life Debt, not to mention that she's the one who taught him how to cast the spell correctly earlier that day! It is clear that without Harry's intervention she would have died.

In _Chamber of Secrets_ Harry goes into the Chamber to rescue his friend's little sister, Ginny. He gets bitten by the Basilisk and "kills" Tom Riddle, saving Ginny from certain death. It is only by the intervention of Fawkes and his Phoenix tears that Harry is saved from dying. Doesn't she owe him something for nearly dying to save her?

J.K.R. has stated that in neither case do _either_ of the girls owe Harry a Life Debt (or Debt of Honor) of _any_ kind. Huh? That directly contradicts what she has Dumbledore say at the end of _Prisoner of Azkaban_.

However, also in _Prisoner of Azkaban,_ Harry, at no risk to himself, asks, he simply _ASKS_ , Sirius not to kill Peter Pettigrew. Sirius agrees.

Peter now owes Harry a Life Debt according to Dumbledore!

How do we know this?

In _Deathly Hallows_ it says:

.

 _"_ _You're going to kill me?" Harry choked, attempting to prise off the metal fingers. "After I saved your life? You owe me, Wormtail!"_

 _The silver fingers slackened. Harry had not expected it: He wrenched himself free, astonished, keeping his hand over Wormtail's mouth. He saw the ratlike man's small watery eyes widen with fear and surprise: He seemed just as shocked as Harry at what his hand had done, at the tiny, merciful impulse it had betrayed, and he continued to struggle more powerfully, as though to undo that moment of weakness._

 _"_ _And we'll have that," whispered Ron, tugging Wormtail's wand from his other hand._

 _Wandless, helpless, Pettigrew's pupils dilated in terror. His eyes had slid from Harry's face to something else. His own silver fingers were moving inexorably toward his own throat._

 _"_ _No —"_

 _Without pausing to think, Harry tried to drag back the hand, but there was no stopping it. The silver tool that Voldemort had given his most cowardly servant had turned upon its disarmed and useless owner; Pettigrew was reaping his reward for his hesitation, his moment of pity; he was being strangled before their eyes._

.

(One could argue that Wormtail's inability to kill Harry was the intervention of the Life Debt magic — remember " _This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, . . . "_ according to Dumbledore _.  
_

Or as him merely hesitating, but for mere hesitation that seems rather harsh that his hand would kill him. A more likely explanation is this: Voldemort always said NOT to kill Harry, that that right was reserved for Voldemort only. And by trying to kill Harry Wormtail has betrayed Voldemort's orders and thus the silver hand kills him.)

.

How did that scene happen if Life Debts (or Debts of Honor) _don't_ exist? Remember, Pettigrew has repeatedly callously killed people without remorse throughout the series. Suddenly he has a conscience? If it were only an emotional reaction with nothing to do with magic, then you have to explain why Wizards and Witches who are clearly psychopaths suddenly seem to have a conscience.

This scene and Dumbledore's " _This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, . . . "_ certainly seems to confirm that Life Debts exist. _  
_

In all three cases it is by the direct voluntary actions of Harry that someone doesn't die — " _When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them_ . . ." — yet in only one of them is a bond, a Life Debt or Debt of Honor, incurred? And the one that incurs the debt is risk-free for Harry? Nope. Not believable. Inconsistent plotting.

The only _possible_ solution for J.K.R. is that you can _only_ incur a Life Debt if you save the life of someone who is an _enemy_. In which case, in _Deathly Hallows,_ when Draco lies about Harry being the prisoner in the Malfoy Manor that should create a Life Debt as there is no doubt that Voldemort would have reacted viciously if he discovered Draco had lied. This could be countered when Harry could easily have escaped from the burning Room of Requirement, he instead risks his life to save Draco from certain death. Draco now owes Harry a Life Debt. And there is balance between the two, as a result — neither owes the other anything.

But for that to be true many Death Eaters, and students who want to be Death Eaters, owe Dumbledore a Life Debt for his refusal to have them sent to Azkaban, and sure death, for their crimes. Surely, when Dumbledore refuses to turn Draco in to the Aurors for the cursed necklace that sent a student to St. Mungos, doesn't Draco owe Dumbledore a Life Debt?

Apparently not. In all these cases you have someone, without risk to themselves, saving the life of an enemy from certain death, just as Harry saved Peter from Sirius and Remus. But they have no Life Debts or Debts of Honor incurred, according to J.K.R.

So, based on Canon, there is **_NO_** logic to creating a Life Debt — it is more or less a random event that occurs according to J.K.R's plotting convenience.

She has even said, regarding if Peter Pettigrew owes Harry a Life Debt, "No, not really." Yet Dumbledore, who is supposed to know more about magic than anyone except the Flamels, in the novels implicitly believe that such things exist, just as the Muggles do _not_ believe in them. In the case of the Muggle world (that is, what we assume is our world in the books), a Life Debt is a matter of one's honor, nothing more, and is considered a "quaint" custom of the Chivalrous Age that has nothing to do with modern life. And it's ignored as irrelevant. If a friend of yours told you they owed a Life Debt to a stranger for saving their life you would probably laugh at them calling the whole idea ridiculous. Maybe gratitude, but a Life Debt?

If magic did not recognize Life Debts, then neither would the Wizards.

But what if Dumbledore didn't mean literally, what if it's a just a matter of personal or family honor? If it's a matter of Honor, then only "proper" conservative Pure-blood Wizards would follow the old customs and honor the debt created.

And if Life Debts are merely from the Code of Honor, then absolutely both Hermione and Ginny owe Harry a Life Debt. (All the logic above remains the same.)

So, according to J.K.R. Life Debts don't exist even though in canon we can find instances where characters believe and act as if the Life Debts exist.

In any case, here's my rationale for a magical Life Debt to exist, if you decide Life Debts (or Debts of Honor which only "proper" Wizards truly follow) are possible in your story without making them total nonsense as they are in J.K.R.'s HP universe!

To earn a Life Debt:

 **First** , _the person must be in a situation where if nothing else is done they WILL die_.

 **Second** , y _our actions to save the other person must be of your own free will without ulterior motives or obligations,_ _and_ y _ou can't have a responsibility to the one being saved._ Otherwise, every Auror would pile up Life Debts like cordwood during their careers as they save people from Death Eaters. Madam Pomfrey would have thousands of Life Debts owed to her for the students she saved from certain death! If a professor prevented a child from dying after falling off a broom, the child would owe a Life Debt. And every time Snape saved the life of a child from an exploding cauldron, he would gain a Life Debt. And hired body guards would end up with their employers owing them Life Debts. So, People in positions of stewardship cannot acquire Life Debts. Nor can family members owe each other Life Debts because family members are supposed to look out for each other.

 **Third** , _you have to risk your life by acting. If you fail it is likely you both die_. As an example, what did Hermione risk in setting fire to Professor Snape's robes during the first Quidditch game in _Sorcerer's Stone_? A stern lecture, points loss, and a detention? It was _Snape,_ acting as a proper staff member regarding the life of a student, who was preventing Harry from plummeting to his death! It was purely by accident that she jostled Quirrell and broke his concentration. _That_ is not equivalent to jumping on a troll. If you risk _nothing_ , you've done _nothing_ to earn a Life Debt. Otherwise, if you were merely to catch someone by the hand who tripped on a staircase and thus prevented them from falling to their death, they would owe you a Life Debt.

 **Fourth** , _you can't be acting to save your own life as well_. That is, if you and another blunder into and are trapped in a room with a dangerous monster and you manage to subdue the monster saving your lives, the other person doesn't owe you a Life Debt. You would have tried to subdue the monster to save your own life anyway. Saving the other's life was an accident (i.e., Harry and Dumbledore in the Voldemort's cavern. They saved each other). In _Deathly Hallows_ , Harry can easily escape the burning Room of Requirement, yet he makes the decision to stop and turn around to save Draco. He risks his life to save Draco when he has no reason to do so.

 **Fifth** , _you can't engineer a situation just to create a Life Debt._ Otherwise, all Voldemort would have to do is order his Death Eaters to attack someone with the intent to kill them, and then show up and save the victim, thereby creating a Life Debt. With Life Debt in hand, Voldemort orders the victim to follow his orders. And in a month he takes over the country without killing a single Pure-blood. And he has loyal followers who will never betray him because their own magic will prevent them.

 **Sixth,** _Life Debts can only be owed to one person._ Yes, Ron helped Harry save Hermione and Ginny, but whose careless actions put Hermione's life in danger in the first place and had to be convinced to save her? And who actually fought with Tom Riddle and the snake to save Ginny? While Ron was involved in both situations, he was not actively risking his life.

So, in _Sorcerer's Stone_ , Hermione owes a Life Debt to Harry. She does nothing to cancel it until, perhaps, after we reach _Order of the Phoenix_. She doesn't owe Ron a Life Debt because he was the one who did something to put her life in jeopardy and he remained by the door and could easily escape at any time — his life was NOT in danger.

In _Chamber of Secrets_ Ginny Weasley owes Harry a Life Debt. She does nothing in the _series_ to cancel that debt.

In _Prisoner of Azkaban_ does Sirius owe Harry a Life Debt? No. Harry did cast that _Patronus_ , but while he was in the process of saving Sirius' life, he was also saving his own. Was his life in danger when he assisted Sirius in escaping on Buckbeak? Nope, the worst they would have done to him was detention. And in the _Goblet of Fire_ Harry saves Fleur's little sister Gabrielle, but she was never in danger so he didn't save her when Fleur didn't reach her hostage.

And here's an interesting strategy: Make as many enemies as possible, then wait for opportunities to save them just so you can accumulate Life Debts!


	17. Chapter 17 Slander and Trials Peerage2

**Slander and Trials. Peerage, Part 2**

Many fanfiction authors seem to think that the Wizarding world wouldn't have slander laws. Unfortunately, that ignores the common history that the English Wizards shared with their Muggle cousins prior to the Statute of Secrecy in 1692.

 **Slander**

At one time, the honour of Peers, Lords of the Realm, was especially protected by the law. While defamation of a commoner was known as _libel_ or _slander_ , the defamation of a Peer (or of a Great Officer of State) was called _scandalum magnatum_.

The Statute of Westminster of 1275 provided that "from henceforth none be so hardy to tell or publish any false News or Tales, whereby discord, or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the King and his People, or the Great Men of the Realm."

Scandalum magnatum was punishable under the aforesaid statute as well as under further laws passed during the reign of Richard II. Scandalum magnatum was both a tort and a criminal offence. The prohibition on scandalum magnatum was first enforced by the King's Council. During the reign of Henry VII (1485-1509), the Star Chamber, a court formerly reserved for trial of serious offences such as rioting, assumed jurisdiction over scandalum magnatum, as well as libel and slander, cases. The court, which sat without a jury and in secret, was often used as a political weapon and a device of royal tyranny, leading to its abolition in 1641; its functions in respect of defamation cases passed to the common law courts. However, the number of cases had _already_ dwindled as the laws of libel, slander and contempt of court developed in its place and were already being enforced (and well before the Harry Potter Universe's Statute of Secrecy was passed).

So, we definitely have common laws against slander dating back several hundred years prior to the Statute of Secrecy and well engrained into the laws that would have been adopted by the Wizards when they separated from the Muggles. Whether the Wizarding Peers, or Great Men of the Wizarding Realm, would have more _stringent_ laws against slander is up for debate.

 **Trial by Peers**

Just as commoners have a right to trial by a jury of their equals (other commoners), Peers and Peeresses had a right to trial by other Peers. The right of Peers to trial by their own order was formalized during the 14th century. A statute passed in 1341 provided:

"Whereas before this time the Peers of the land have been arrested and imprisoned, and their temporalities, lands, and tenements, goods and cattels, asseized in the King's hands, and some put to death without judgment of their Peers: It is accorded and assented, that no Peer of the land . . . shall be brought in judgment to lose his temporalities, lands, tenements, goods and cattels, nor to be arrested, imprisoned, outlawed, exiled, nor forejudged, nor put to answer, nor be judged, but by award of the said Peers in Parliament."

The privilege of trial by Peers was still ill-defined, and the statute did not cover Peeresses until about 1442. In that year, after an ecclesiastical court (which included King Henry VI of England, Henry Beaufort and John Kemp) found Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, guilty of witchcraft and banished her to the Isle of Man, a statute was enacted granting peeresses the right of trial by Peers.

What does this mean for the Wizengamot, the official body of judgement in the Wizarding World? If Nobles, or Great Men of the Realm, exist in the Wizarding World, then the Wizengamot _must_ be divided into two bodies — one to judge the Peers of the Realm and the other to judge commoners. Thus, the Wizengamot cannot be an entirely hereditary body! At least for the commoners there must be some mechanism to elect or elevate a commoner to that body. With Trial by Peer so engrained into society in the centuries _BEFORE_ the Statute of Secrecy the Pure-bloods would _never_ have succeeded in eliminating it from the Wizengamot.


	18. Chapter 18 Dumbledore and the Elder Wand

**Dumbledore and the Elder Wand**

How did Dumbledore beat the unbeatable Elder Wand?

The elder wand as described by J. :

 _"So the oldest brother, who was a combative man, asked for a wand more powerful than any in existence: a wand that must_ _ **always**_ _win duels for its owner, a wand worthy of a wizard who had conquered Death!"_

—The Tale of the Three Brothers.

(my emphasis on always)

If the wand must _always_ win duels for its master, how did Dumbledore win it from Grindelwald in a duel?

Canon says the Elder Wand changes allegiance **_only_** if its current master is "disarmed" or "bested" in a duel. Actually, because the Wand _ALWAYS_ wins in a duel, **that should be impossible** — unless the other Wizard surprised the master of the wand and took it with magic **before** he had a chance to pull out the wand. Once the Wizard has his hand on the wand, the duel starts and the Elder Wand _**always wins**_. That J.K.R. doesn't follow this logic is a plot-hole.

Grindelwald never defeated Gregorovitch or bested him in a duel, he merely stole it and used the Elder Wand to stun the storekeeper. Thus Grindelwald _never_ had the allegiance of the wand; _that_ is why Dumbledore could win it from him in a duel. Even Grindelwald knew this, as he says in Deathly Hallows when Voldemort visits him, "So, you have come. I thought you would . . . one day. But your journey was pointless. I never had it." He knew that while he had physical possession of the wand, he never had its _allegiance_. He never truly had control of its powers.

In addition, it is never said that the wand-maker Gregorovitch won the wand in a duel, just that he had it in his shop. It is very possible that not even Gregorovitch had the Elder Wand's allegiance because the _previous_ owner still had the wand's "true" allegiance, and that the Elder Wand had been stolen from _him_.

Because Grindelwald never had the wand's allegiance, Dumbledore _never defeated_ the "true" master of the wand. Therefore, he never had the wand's allegiance and it wouldn't be "unbeatable" while he held it. How do we know this? Because Draco easily disarms Dumbledore who is holding the "unbeatable" Elder Wand. Can't be very much of " _a wand that must_ _ **always**_ _win duels for its owner_ " if a still-in-school student can so **_easily_** best the handler. _Unless_ the Headmaster _never_ had the Wand's true allegiance in the first place because that allegiance already belonged to someone else, a _previous_ holder of the wand.

This is where it gets confusing and J.K.R. makes another plotting mistake.

Prior to Snape killing Dumbledore, Draco disarmed the older Wizard, with the wand flying out over the battlements. At this point, both Grindelwald and Gregorovitch were still alive, and _if_ Gregorovitch or Grindelwald had the wand's allegiance then Draco could not because he hadn't taken the wand from either of them, and both of them are alive at this point. However, if the "true" owner, the one who had the wand before Gregorovitch, _has_ died in the meantime, then Draco **_does_** have the wand's allegiance because he beat the person currently holding the wand when the Elder Wand had no allegiance to living a Wizard or Witch. But we do not know this as a fact, so it is uncertain. All we can say is that Draco _might_ have the wand's allegiance.

The Elder Wand is found and placed in Dumbledore's tomb. Voldemort steals it and notices it hasn't given him its allegiance because it has a _prior_ "true" owner who must still be alive. This proves that simply stealing the wand from someone does not grant you the wand's allegiance — thus Grindelwald, in stealing the wand from Gregorovitch, never attained its allegiance — even if Gregorovitch had the wand's allegiance, which we don't know is true. You have to best the owner in a duel by taking it with force before the owner has time to draw the Wand (because, once drawn, _**it can't lose**_ ).

This sets up the situation with Snape and Voldemort where Voldemort decides he must kill Snape to gain "Mastery" of the Elder Wand not knowing that Draco was the one who disarmed, bested, Dumbledore. Not that it matters, because Dumbledore never had the wand's allegiance, anyway.

And now we reach _another_ major plot-hole!

Harry and company are caught by Snatchers in Deathly Hallows and taken to Malfoy Manor where Harry ". . . leapt over an armchair and wrested the three wands from Draco's grip, . . . ." And now, according to J.K.R., Harry has mastery over the Elder Wand because he "defeated" Draco in a fight. This occurs just _after_ Voldemort has finished killing both Grindelwald and Gregorovitch. Notice, the Elder Wand is not present. Notice, magic is not used. Notice that this assumes Draco is the "true" master of the Elder Wand.

And, somehow, J.K.R. decides that that _non-magical_ fight between Draco and Harry means the Elder Wand has changed allegiance from Draco to Harry? A _fistfight_ without the Elder Wand at hand has the Wand changing allegiance (remember, Voldemort has the actual wand)? Heck, that means that if you have the Elder Wand and you don't hit your girlfriend back when she slaps you and runs crying to another room because you wounded her feelings, she just "defeated" you and took the Elder Wand's allegiance! (Yes, she didn't take the wand from you, but then again, Harry didn't take the Elder Wand wand from Draco as it was actually in Riddle's hand!) Isn't that just ridiculous? And don't forget that just prior to this Draco took Harry's wand away from him with a magical spell! Since when does a fistfight trump a magical battle for the magical allegiance of a wand?

So, the trick to getting the Elder Wand's allegiance is simple: get the owner drunk, physically beat him up, and take the Elder Wand. Or, better yet, simply stun him with your wand while he's asleep and take the wand! Because, clearly, if someone can be beaten in a duel while they are too drunk to resist or are asleep, then they are not powerful enough or worthy of the Wand's allegiance! Or, if you want to play "fair," challenge the wand owner to any mundane sport or game that he is bad at (such as poker or a foot race) and then beat him legitimately. Because he lost the sport or game, he is _obviously_ not powerful enough or by losing is unworthy of the wand's allegiance!

No, if these items are "real" as portrayed in the books, then the _only_ way the Elder Wand can change allegiance is if you take the wand from the allegiance holder in an actual duel or magical fight (such as ambushing the holder while he's distracted fighting other Wizards). Simple fisticuffs won't work, nor sneak attacks where there is no actual possibility of a duel.

Thus, neither Voldemort nor Harry have the wand's allegiance because either the previous "true" owner is still alive somewhere, or it's actually Draco and nobody knows this.

The end would be the same, as not having the wand's allegiance would certainly cripple Voldemort's ability to use the wand effectively against Harry. So, Harry wins against Voldemort simply because he has superior magical strength and overwhelms Voldemort.

In any event, knowing how dangerous the Elder Wand is, why doesn't Harry throw it through the Veil of Death in the Ministry? Someone smart like Hermione could trace the wand to Dumbledore, and reason that the wand buried with him is the "Death Stick" and thus acquire it. If it's someone two hundred years in the future, then it's guaranteed that the previous owner has passed on and it can easily grant its allegiance to the next Wizard or Witch who disarms the nitwit carrying the wand around.

It would be MUCH safer to throw it into the Veil of Death.


	19. Chapter 19 Elder Wand, Part Two

**Elder Wand, Part Two**

Raw666 sent me a delightful interpretation of who has the allegiance of the Elder Wand. S/he reminds us that we were told the Wand was _taken_ from the first Brother, Antioch, after he was murdered in his sleep. He was never _beaten_ in a duel. After that, I think it rapidly gained the reputation as the Death Stick, not necessarily for its ability to never lose in a duel, but more likely because its owners always died violently!

According to J.K.R. it was only _legend_ that stated that to be Master of the Wand you had to best the other Wizard/Witch. And, as J.K.R. has established, Wizards have no common sense, so no one realized that while they had the Wand they didn't have its allegiance. And those that did realize this went on a killing spree to eliminate the previous owners — those that were still alive, that is — in a vain attempt to gain true control of the Wand. And building the legend of the "Death Stick."

Raw666 suggests that no one but a _blood relative_ of the Peverells could command and hold its allegiance! Naturally, that would mean that while people could acquire the Elder Wand, no one could ever _truly_ have its allegiance unless they were related to the Peverell blood-line. We know that the Invisibility Cloak, the third Deathly Hallow, was passed down from Ignotus, who definitely did have children, to the Potter family (Iolanthe Peverell married Hardwin Potter). So Harry Potter _could_ hold the Elder Wands allegiance.

The first brother, Antioch, owner of the Elder Wand, apparently died without children. That's not surprising considering how quickly he perished in the legend — in a matter of a few days! The Gaunts _claimed_ to be descended from Cadmus, the second brother, owner of the Ring, but there doesn't appear to be any _evidence_ supporting their claim _except_ their possession of it. Thus the ring was most likely acquired by others not _directly_ in the blood-line — cousins at best, total strangers at worst. As proof the Gaunts can't be descended from the Peverells we have Tom Riddle himself saying he did not have the Wand's allegiance. That's why he kills Gregorovitch, Grindelwald, and Snape. Therefore, if only a Peverell _relative_ can wield the Wand then the Gaunts _cannot_ be descended from the Peverells because Tom Riddle _did not have_ the Wand's allegiance.

In any case, we arrive at the final duel where Tom is using the Elder Wand while not having its true allegiance. Harry is a descendant of the Peverells and the Death Stick recognize his magic as that of a "true" Peverell and refuses to cause him fatal harm. Thus, Harry avoids being killed and the Wand forces Tom Riddle to accept his own Avada Kedavra and die.

This actually is a much better fit to the story line than the nebulous and illogical transfer of allegiance described by J.K.R. in the books, as pointed out in the previous Rant. Only a Peverell/Potter can wield the Wand and never lose a duel, and no one ever knew it! If she had said this in the last few chapters of the last book, though, everyone would have yelled "Oh, no, Dues Ex Machina! You cheated!"

It still doesn't explain, though, why Hermione didn't convince Harry to toss the Wand through the Veil in the Ministry and stop all the mayhem it caused.

FredFred has come up with a slight twist on Tom Riddle being a Peverell that explains how he _could_ be a descendant and still not have the wand's allegiance:

If magical inheritance parallels inheritance customs in the real world, then, when you die, your relatives inherit. Tom Riddle _dies_ on Halloween 1981. Although his _spirit_ remains tethered to "this mortal plain" because of his Horcruxes, he has, in fact, _died_. Consequently, his "ownership" of the wand passes to the next Peverell relative, Harry. So even when he has the wand in his physical possession, he's no longer "entitled" to it — he's using someone else's, namely Harry's, wand, so of course it doesn't work "properly" when used against its owner.


End file.
